Practical Blacksmithing Vol. II: A Collection of Articles Contributed at Different Times by Skilled Workmen to the Columns of "The Blacksmith and Wheelwright" and Covering Nearly the Whole Range of Blacksmithing from the Simplest Job of Work to Some of the Most Complex Forgings

By Milton Thomas Richardson

Roll up your sleeves, blaze your flame, and ready your hammer! For this book will take you on a metal working, weapon forging, and tool wielding journey in the basis of blacksmithing.

Whether you're a mechanical engineer who wants to have an edge over their colleagues in manufacturing courses, an old-tools collector, a classic

• Language: English
• Publisher: Left Of Brain Onboarding Pty Ltd
• Release date: Feb 15, 2022
• ISBN: 9781396321399

Book preview

PREFACE.

In Vol. I. the editor of this work gave a brief account of the early history of blacksmithing, so far as known, and described a few ancient and many modern tools.

Numerous plans of shops were given with best methods of building chimneys and constructing forges.

This volume opens with a brief treatise on the early history of iron and steel. Artistic iron work is then considered, and the tests employed to show the strength of iron are given.

It was the original intention to compress all the material relating to tools in Vol. I., but this was found to be impracticable without largely increasing the size of the volume, and possibly the price as well. It was deemed best therefore to devote so much of Vol. II., as might be necessary, to the further consideration of tools, and the reader will doubtless agree with us that the space has not been wasted.

Vol. III. will be devoted mainly to the consideration of jobs of work.

The Editor

CHAPTER I.

Iron and Steel.

Their Antiquity and Great Usefulness.

All mechanics, irrespective of the trades which they follow, have so much to do with iron in its various forms, either by working it or by using tools and instruments in the construction of which it forms an important part, that a brief consideration of the material, both retrospective and present, cannot fail to be of interest. To trace the development of iron from its earliest known existence to the present, and to glance at its use as a material of construction, that, unlike all others can rarely be dispensed with in favor of a substitute equally desirable, cannot fail to be of the greatest interest.

In the description of the building of Solomon’s Temple there is no specific statement that iron was employed, although by inference it is understood that this material must have been used in the tools of the workmen, if for no other purpose. It is not to be forgotten that the record says there was neither hammer nor axe, nor tool of iron heard in the house while it was being built. A plausible construction to place upon this assertion is that the parts were fashioned and fitted together at distant places, and were joined noiselessly in completing the structure. This view of the case serves to point out the excellence of the skill of that day, for, however great the care that is exercised at the present time by mechanics, few buildings are put up in which the sound of tools in the shaping of the various parts, after they have been sent to the building for putting up, might be dispensed with.

King David, it is said, had in his collection of materials iron in abundance for the doors of the gates and for the joinings. Other allusions to iron are to be found in the Old Testament Scriptures. Some passages are of figurative character, where iron is the emblem of hardness, strength and power. Others are descriptive, and indicate its uses in those early times.

The manufacture of iron existed in India from very remote antiquity, though carried on in a very primitive manner. Vast accumulations of slag and cinder are found spread over large areas in various districts, and the manufacture of iron is still carried on with little change from the ancient process. In one of the temples near Delhi there is a wrought-iron pillar sixty feet in length, which dates as far back as the fourth century of the present era. It is only of late years that the production of a shaft of these dimensions has been possible to the present race of iron-workers.

The extent to which iron was employed by the ancient Egyptians is a problem difficult of solution. When the enormous labor expended upon the masonry and sculpture in the hardest granite, and the beautiful surface and high finish generally displayed in the architectural works of that country are considered, it seems difficult to imagine that tools inferior to the hardest steel could have produced the result, yet the evidence is exceedingly slight that anything of the kind was employed. Bronze is sometimes found in ancient tombs in that country in a variety of forms, but iron is almost entirely wanting. Iron mines have been discovered in Upper Egypt, and the remains of iron-works have been found recently near Mount Sinai. An iron plate was found in one of the pyramids, and a sickle in one of the tombs at Thebes.

The use of iron by the Romans was of comparatively late introduction. The fine specular iron of the Isle of Elba had been smelted by the Etruscans from an early date, but it does not seem to have been extensively used in Italy. It was not until the time of the second Punic War that the Romans, extending their conquests beyond their narrow original seat, obtained supplies of iron and steel from Spain, and discarded their bronze weapons for the harder and keener metal. Iron was little used by any of the ancient nations in building construction. When Virgil describes the splendors of Dido’s rising city, no mention is made of iron in any form. Stone, with the addition of bronze for plating, are the materials especially alluded to.

In the New Testament mention is made of an iron gate which would seem to indicate that at that period iron had been brought into use in many forms, more, however, in the way of machinery, armor and weapons, than in building construction. For all constructive purposes bronze was gradually superseded by iron, and during the middle ages was worked with great skill and success. Iron employed at this period was not made by the process of fusion and puddling, but was obtained direct from the ore by roasting with charcoal and working it under the hammer. The metal thus obtained was of excellent quality, and such examples as have come down to us indicate that it was very skilfully manipulated. Armor and weapons attained a high degree of efficiency, and were finished with great taste.

There are very few specimens remaining in anything like perfection of the mediaeval smith’s work. Enough fragments, however, are in existence to indicate the extreme beauty of the workmanship of this age. The rich and graceful curves of the work done at this time, together with their lightness and strength, show what capabilities exist in iron when freely treated in accordance with its nature. Probably the grills or screens and the gates of the middle ages exhibited the art of the smith in its greatest perfection. Nothing that has been made in modern times is equal to the specimens which remain of that period. The wonder arises that, with such simple means as were at the command of the mechanics and artists of that day, such wonderful effects could be produced.

During the Romanesque period iron does not seem to have been employed, even in carpentry or masonry. At the end of the twelfth century iron cramps were employed at the Cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris, to connect the stones of the cobbled corners. The oxidation of these cramps in the course of time had the effect of fracturing the stones. Experience in this practice does not seem to have taught wisdom, for, even at the present day, the mistake of using iron in similar positions has frequently led to like results.

We owe to Germany the discovery of the process by which fusible iron could be smelted from the ore. It probably arose from the gradual improvement of the blowing apparatus, by which the old blast bloomeries were transformed into blast furnaces. Cast iron was unknown prior to the middle of the sixteenth century. About 1550 the German system, above alluded to, was introduced into England, where there already existed great facilities in the enormous quantity of scoriae accumulated about the ancient bloomeries and in the abundance of timber for fuel. Progress in the art was so rapid that cast-iron ordnance was an article of export from England early in the seventeenth century. As the art of casting made progress, the art of the smith declined. The cheapness of cast iron and the facility with which it could be manipulated, led to its extensive use in every department of life.

In 1735, the problem of smelting iron with pit coal was successfully solved, but it was not until within a very recent period that the advantages of iron on any great scale developed themselves. Down to the commencement of the present century the casting of iron pipe was so difficult and costly an operation, that in schemes for the supply of water to towns, wooden pipes were adopted for the mains. In 1777 the first experiment was made with iron as a material in bridge building. At present scarcely a bridge of any importance is constructed of other material.

Having thus glanced hastily at the progress of manufacture and the use of iron from the earliest historical periods to the present time, the inquiry comes up, what is to be its influence in the future? That it will contribute materially to aid man’s power over the elements of nature is certain, but the moral results which are likely to follow lie beyond our province. All true designs arise out of construction. Every style which has attained any eminence owes its effect to the adoption of its essential parts as sources of beauty rather than an attempt to conceal them. The use of iron in any construction or design is a source of power and effect, put into the hands of the architect for good or for evil.

The Strength of Wrought Iron and Steel.

There is something very interesting, but not altogether as yet understood, in the behavior and strength of iron and steel when loaded.

It is all very well to institute certain tests to find the number of pounds it requires to break a piece having a sectional area of one square inch, and from this pronounce what is the strength of the iron; because, with our present knowledge and appliances, it is all we can do, and a test of some kind is of course imperative. It is a curious fact, however, that the strength of a piece of iron or steel varies according to the manner in which the load is applied, If the metal receives its load suddenly, it will break under a less weight than if the load comes on slowly and gradually increases; and the difference is not a minute one either, for it is as great as 20 per cent under the two extremes of conditions. One of the most eminent constructing engineers in this country stated not long since, in reply to a question, that he would make as much as 20 per cent difference in the strength of two beams to receive the same load, one to have the load suddenly, and the other to have it gradually applied. From this it is a fair and reasonable deduction that if the load, when applied, caused vibration, the beam would require still greater dimensions to be of equal strength, because vibrations are simply minute movements, and, in the case of horizontal beams, on moving downward increase the pressure of the load.

A short time since some experiments were made to ascertain the strength of iron and steel wire, two specimens of each size of wire being used, one just as the iron came from the mill and the other an annealed specimen.

The wires were suspended vertically, and a certain weight, as say 10 lbs., was hung on them. Then in some cases a ½ lb. weight per day was added, in others 1 lb. per day, in yet others the weights were increased as fast as they could be put on, and in every instance it was found that the breaking strains increased according as the time between the increases of weight was made longer, the amount varying from 10 to 20 per cent. The failure of the boiler plates of the English steamship Livadia elicited some interesting facts and strange opinions upon the behavior of low-grade steel. The facts concerning these plates are given below. The boiler was 14 feet 3 inches diameter by 16 feet long. The plates were ¾-inch thick, lap-jointed and treble riveted. The plates were all punched, then slightly heated and bent to shape, afterwards put together, and the rivet holes reamed out to size. While under this treatment one of the plates fell out of the slings on to an iron plate and was cracked right across the rivet holes. Naturally this gave some anxiety, but after the plates were all in the boiler itself, they cracked across the rivet holes in nearly all directions; that is, many of them did.

Investigation was immediately set up, chemically and mechanically, when it appeared, as nearly as could be ascertained, that although the stock was good of which the plates were made, it had not been thoroughly worked under the hammer before rolling.

Dr. Siemens, the inventor of the process which bears his name, asserts that annealing plates, either before or after working (punching), is of no advantage; tending, if anything, to injure rather than benefit the materials. Many practical men, however, hold views in opposition to Dr. Siemens on this question. —By Joshua Rose.

The Rotting and Crystallization of Iron.

I noticed an article lately, in which an iron worker, who claims an experience of fifty years in his trade, says that iron rots as well as crystallizes under strain and jar. The latter part of this statement is correct in degree only. The springs of vehicles deteriorate by use and excessive strain, but not to the extent which the writer of the article I refer to represents, as the springs of thousands of old vehicles will attest, in which not a leaf is broken, although the remainder of the gear is worn out.

And although iron may be crystalline in the fracture it does not lose its tensile strength to any great extent, unless under a very great strain or jar, as in the case of quartz-mill stamp stems, which are lifted and dropped about once a second, are run night and day, including Sundays, and even then will stand several years of this hard usage before breaking. The danger of iron losing its tensile strength is greatly exaggerated in the article in question. If it were not so people would be afraid to go over and under the Brooklyn bridge.

The statement that iron rots is absolutely untrue, and if the crowbars referred to in the article mentioned would not weld readily, and had a bad smell when heated,